Abortion involves child, too

L.W. ShoafLexington

Published: Friday, February 8, 2008 at 12:30 a.m.

Last Modified: Thursday, February 7, 2008 at 5:10 p.m.

Editor: This letter is in response to Lyndsey Crumbley and her letter printed Feb. 4. Ms. Crumbley, I will not assume to know your background or what your past holds, but from the tone of your letter, it seems that something has given you a very dim view of those who hold a different opinion than you; namely pro-lifers. You state that you are "enraged" and "infuriated" just by reading about the Alpha Pregnancy benefit. You state that you are pro-choice, but you proceed to call pro-lifers "narrow-minded," and you call the keynote speaker hypocritical.

I would ask you, Ms. Crumbley, to look at yourself. While you are correct that not all unplanned children placed in agencies turn out well, and not all unplanned births, placements and adoptions turn out great, but many, many do have great results. And those lives are much better than their gruesome death had they been aborted. Remember, not all planned births turn out well either, but to the prospective parents, the hope is much greater than the fear. So it is to pro-lifers when a prospective mother chooses not to abort.

You also state that "limited access to abortion is a violation of a woman's human rights." Ms Crumbley, there are always at least two people involved and affected in every birth and/or abortion; the mother and the child. In your mind, does the child not have any human rights? If the mother should have the right to choose, should not the child also have the right to choose? Are not both, as humans, endowed with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Ms. Crumbley, I would ask you to look inside yourself. If in your mind it is all right for a woman to choose to have an abortion, regardless of the child, why is it so wrong and so upsetting to you when a woman chooses not to have an abortion but to give life to the child? In both instances, the woman is making a choice. Now who is narrow-minded?

<p>Editor: This letter is in response to Lyndsey Crumbley and her letter printed Feb. 4. Ms. Crumbley, I will not assume to know your background or what your past holds, but from the tone of your letter, it seems that something has given you a very dim view of those who hold a different opinion than you; namely pro-lifers. You state that you are "enraged" and "infuriated" just by reading about the Alpha Pregnancy benefit. You state that you are pro-choice, but you proceed to call pro-lifers "narrow-minded," and you call the keynote speaker hypocritical.</p><p>I would ask you, Ms. Crumbley, to look at yourself. While you are correct that not all unplanned children placed in agencies turn out well, and not all unplanned births, placements and adoptions turn out great, but many, many do have great results. And those lives are much better than their gruesome death had they been aborted. Remember, not all planned births turn out well either, but to the prospective parents, the hope is much greater than the fear. So it is to pro-lifers when a prospective mother chooses not to abort.</p><p>You also state that "limited access to abortion is a violation of a woman's human rights." Ms Crumbley, there are always at least two people involved and affected in every birth and/or abortion; the mother and the child. In your mind, does the child not have any human rights? If the mother should have the right to choose, should not the child also have the right to choose? Are not both, as humans, endowed with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?</p><p>Ms. Crumbley, I would ask you to look inside yourself. If in your mind it is all right for a woman to choose to have an abortion, regardless of the child, why is it so wrong and so upsetting to you when a woman chooses not to have an abortion but to give life to the child? In both instances, the woman is making a choice. Now who is narrow-minded?</p>